Miller v. Boys & Girls Clubs of Snohomish County
ORDER denying Defendant's 49 Motion for satisfaction of payment of the offer of judgment amount and an order of dismissal. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
CASE NO. C15-2027-JCC
BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Boys & Girls Clubs of Snohomish
County’s motion for satisfaction of payment of the offer of judgment amount and an order of
dismissal (Dkt. No. 49). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant
record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the
reasons explained herein.
The Court detailed the facts of this case in its order on Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment. (See Dkt. No. 39 at 1–6.) On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff Marta Miller filed a timely
notice of acceptance of an offer of judgment. (Dkt. No. 47.) However, before the Clerk entered a
judgment, Defendant filed this current motion for satisfaction of payment of the offer of
judgment and an order of dismissal. (Dkt. No. 49.) Defendant argues a judgment is not necessary
at this time because it has satisfied its payment obligations. (See Dkt. No. 50-1.)
PAGE - 1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, if a party accepts an offer within fourteen
days of receipt and files a notice of acceptance with proof of service, “[t]he clerk must then enter
judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a) (emphasis added). Except under extremely limited
circumstances, “the court has no choice about entering the agreed judgment.” 12 Fed. Prac. &
Proc. Civ. § 3005 (2d ed.).
Defendant argues, however, that since payment has been made in full before a judgment
was entered, the Court should enter a satisfaction of offer of judgment and an order of dismissal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). (Dkt. No. 49 at 1.) However, “relief under
Rule 60(b) is not readily justified, particularly with judgments based on Rule 68. . . . [P]laintiff
should be assured that its acceptance will lead to judgment; in all but the most extraordinary
circumstances mistakes should not affect this result.” 12 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 3005.2 (2d
ed.). Here, Defendant has made no compelling arguments why judgment should not be entered in
Plaintiff’s favor. Moreover, Rule 68 is clear that when all the requirements have been met, as is
the case here, judgment must be entered. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion (Dkt.
No. 49) is DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.
DATED this 9th day of August 2017.
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PAGE - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?